Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 7, Number 2. 2018 ISSN 21586195

Participatory Design of Classrooms: Infrastructuring Education Reform in K‐12 Personalized Learning Programs

Julie M. Kallio University of Wisconsin ‐ Madison

The redesign of the physical spaces of classrooms and schools has become a prominent feature in many K‐12, personalized learning schools, though it is often dismissed as a peripheral aspect of change. Through observations and interviews at four public schools, I examine the affordances of these new spaces and the narrative of their design. I situate these spaces‐turned‐places as pedagogical artifacts in a participatory design process to examine how educators and students create functional and meaningful learning spaces. Reframing the physical spaces in this way suggests how the spaces may be supporting the sustainability of the reform.

In an ongoing inquiry into personalized learning (PL) educational reform that redesigns school systems to support reforms in urban, suburban, and rural districts, I heard student‐centered, agency‐based models of learning educators and students speak at length, often unprompted, (Rickabaugh, 2016). PL draws on progressive ideas of about the ways they had modified their classrooms and engaging students as agents in their own learning with the buildings, from knocking down walls to adding sofa chairs support of digital technologies (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, and lamps (Author, et al., 2015). To them, their physical 2013). Educators often use the phrase “voice and choice” as spaces held meaning toward their efforts of transform what two strategies of engaging students as agents in their teaching and learning looks like in their schools. Yet some learning: listening to student voices for their input on what, leaders pushed back, saying, “It’s not about the furniture!,” when, and where they want to learn; and providing students and suggested that educators change their classroom with choices for how they will learn it and how they will furniture as a substitute for “real” pedagogical change. This show they have learned it. Notably, “flexible learning led me to ask: How do the physical spaces of personalized environment” is consistently included in descriptions of this learning programs become meaningful, learning places, and why reform, but the term “environment” in personalized does this matter to these educators and students? learning (DiMartino, Clarke, & Wolk, 2003), and more The vast majority of K‐12 students in the United States still generally in learning theory (Bransford et al., 2000), usually attend a physical school building ‐ five days per week, 181 refers to classroom culture, instructional strategies, and days per year ‐ as part of compulsory schooling. School digital and online spaces, not the physical spaces. While the buildings have changed over the course of history, from the relationship between digital technologies and flexible spaces one room schoolhouse to the comprehensive high school, yet has been explored in the context of higher education the basic unit of the classroom and the arrangement within (Strange & Banning, 2001; Oblinger & Lippincott, 2006), it remains remarkably stable (Jones, 2015). Indeed, the term empirical attention in the context of K‐12 personalized “classroom” prompts an image of desks in a row with the learning remains limited (Tanenbaum, Le Floch, & Boyle, teacher standing at a chalkboard within the “egg‐crate” 2013, is an exception). building, where each room contains a teacher and set of To explore this coincidence of the redesign of physical students (Nair & Fielding, 2005). This assumption of the spaces and educational reform, I use participatory design as physical classroom as the only place where learning happens a theoretical framework to ask theses research questions of or as an inert “container” for teaching and learning also four PL programs as exemplars of this phenomenon. This promotes assumptions of fractal‐like scalability, where framing attends to the features and activities the spaces classrooms are the units of change (Leander et al., 2010) or afford and the retold narratives of the designers and users the ʺblack boxʺ of reform efforts (e.g. Bryk et al., 2010). (in this case, the leaders, teachers, and learners), while Yet these PL educators are challenging this arrangement. understanding the goal as building agency among PL is an increasingly popular, whole‐school model of participants. This approach considers the physical spaces as pedagogical artifacts and provides insight into how this educational reform is mediated by and constituted in the Julie M. Kallio is Doctoral Student, University of Wisconsin ‐ physical spaces of these programs. I propose that these Madison. spaces‐turned‐places serve two functions for their designers

35 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS and users: the alignment of features and affordances with An interpretive approach requires a fundamental their vision of personalized learning and the construction of reconceptualization of the physical spaces as socially and meaningful learning places. Significantly, both of these situationally constructed, in which case there are two functions contribute to building the capacity, connections, components to be considered: the physical artifact itself and and sustainability required for the systemic transformation the process by which it is constructed. First, the physical that the PL model proposes. spaces, like concrete objects more generally, can be considered as embodied conjectures, representing the vision, Literature Review constraints, and context of their design, and are specific and I situated this study in the context of the physical spaces empirically available to be studied directly (Sandoval, 2004). and educational reform, and thus I focus the following Along these lines, Monahan (2002) considers this in review on how the physical spaces have been conceptualized proposing the term built pedagogy, or the ʺarchitectural as a lever for change, then contrast this with a conception of embodiments of educational philosophies” (p.5). Second, spaces as socially and situationally constructed. how physical spaces are socially constructed as places has Approaching the physical spaces as a lever for school change been well conceptualized in geography (Hubbard & Kitchin, is fundamentally about correlating the physical space with 2010) and is beginning to be applied in the learning sciences student outcomes, whether these are test scores or behaviors (Leander et al., 2010). Space can be considered the material in hopes of finding “what works.” For example, Cleveland dimensions and quality of built objects (Hatch & Cunliffe, and Fisher (2014) focus their review of the literature on these 2013), and place as a physical somewhere that holds meaning kinds of evaluative approaches. In this framing, there are and is continually redefined and negotiated as material and two areas of focus: how to assess the space and what to social aspects change (Casey, 1993). Importantly, this consider as outcomes, the latter of which is generally test characterization defines place as a process, not a static scores or student perception. arrangement of furniture. As such, I propose using a For the former, one approach is to categorize types of process‐based theoretical framework of design to explicitly spaces, and various typologies have been emerged, such as attend to physical places as pedagogical artifacts and how campfires, watering holes, caves, and life (Thornburg, 2007); place is constructed. together/public, together/private, alone/public, and Theoretical Framework alone/private (Steelcase, 2015); and knowledge showrooms, knowledge studios, knowledge boutiques, and knowledge Design is a process of solving problems that is user‐ salons (Mathews & Soistmann, 2016, p. 32). Others have centered, iterative, problem‐focused, and implemented in created assessment tools to map student use (Carpenter, context (Edelson, 2002). Design in education is most 2016). More broadly, but still within the lever approach, popularly associated with design‐based research (Design there are frameworks for understanding how spaces fit into Based Research Collective, 2003); however, design has also other reform elements. For example, Radcliffe’s (2008) model be proposed as a meta‐representation to understand of pedagogy, technology, and space as the three key education as “design for learning,” a process by which elements of next generation learning spaces, and the school artifacts are used to shape the natural processes of learning climate model (Owens & Valesky, 2007), an educational toward particular goals (Halverson & Halverson, 2011). leadership framework to inform change efforts. Artifacts are objects that can be physical, like desks and While the lever approach provides key insights into textbooks, or abstract, like schedules and evaluation policies, spaces and outcomes, in the context of an emerging reform, and they can be externally or locally designed (Halverson, it is more helpful to explore how educators are using and 2003). Artifacts mediate how we think and act, which means modifying their spaces and how they make sense of this. The they are not merely aids for thinking and acting, but are influence of the physical spaces on school change is under constitutive of the thinking and acting itself (Wertsch, 1993). conceptualized, as Woolner and colleagues (2018) argue in For example, schedules affect where and with whom we their interpretive investigation of two schools. Their findings interact, but they also convey that there are certain times for suggest that the physical spaces can play a part in learning certain things. supporting, sustaining, and institutionalizing change. All artifacts have features, which the designer builds into Intentional and facilitated participation with the space itself the artifact and reflects the intentions of the designer can be a creative, social process of learning as part of the (Norman, 1994). A feature might be a physical dimension, school’s pedagogy (Parnell, 2015), and there is emerging such as the height of a table, suggesting whether someone interest in exploring the financial, academic, and social value should sit or stand, or symbolic, such as the location of a of educator and student participation in the design of their teacher’s desk at the front of the classroom. When the object learning spaces (Woolner, 2015). is used, its affordances increase the likelihood of particular

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 36 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS outcomes. Because use is socially and situationally research group produced 163 text documents, 176 images, constructed, affordances may or may not match the and 58 memos. designer’s intentions (Pinch & Bijker, 1984). Whereas For this inquiry, I selected four programs (italicized in evaluative approaches seek to correlate intentions and Table 1) where the physical spaces had played a prominent outcomes, the focus here is on the process PL educators are role in the organizational narrative of the implementation of using to align the features and affordances of their physical personalized learning, while also selecting programs that spaces. represented variation in grades, enrollments, and building To understand the involvement of educators and students configurations. Balsam High and Carson Middle provide in the design process itself and the focus on the construction examples of smaller programs within a larger, traditional of meaning, I also draw on the field of participatory design school. Delaney Middle and Edison Elementary provide (DiSalvo et al., 2017). With its roots in democratic examples of large, whole‐school programs. All four workplaces but increasingly applied to other fields, programs built their spaces within existing, public school participatory design is a process “to uncover self‐ buildings. Carson MS, Delaney MS, and Edison ES were all motivations, identities, and interests and to construct in 1950/60s era buildings, whereas Balsam HS had its latest meaningful engagements by working together with renovations in the 1990s/2000s. None of the programs were participants in co‐creating learning environments that meet situated in completely newly designed buildings; all were the needs of the whole community that is engaged in the adapting current spaces. Though not representative of every learning practice” (DiSalvo & DiSalvo, 2014, p.1). In this school in the study, this subsample illuminates a range of way, participatory design shifts the valued outcomes what is possible to create within existing buildings at beyond just a functional design toward building the multiple age levels and program sizes. The data set for these capacity, connection, and sustainability for participants to four programs included 17 interviews, 101 images, 7 focus engage in the work (Penuel, 2015), thus I attend to what and groups with students, and 33 field notes from observations. how the physical spaces are designed, who participates, and The research team coded all data deductively using a how participants construct meaning. This framework multi‐level framework of 29 codes and yielded 5119 coded provides an interpretive frame through which to analyze segments (Author, et al., 2015). From this larger sample, I how meaningful learning spaces are constructed and selected the documents specifically for the four cases and meaningful and sustained education reform. selected the codes for learning environment which revealed 239 coded segments. The original definition of learning Research Design environment included all learning structures, including This study is part of an ongoing, four‐year schedules or competency‐progressions, as well as the phenomenological study of personalized learning of twelve material dimensions of where students were learning. I then programs (Table 1). All are public programs at district‐run recoded these 239 segments for physical spaces, yielding 105 schools and initiated their program within the last ten years. coded segments. Of particular note was that of the combined Though each has a different origin story and context, 17 interviews, 7 focus groups, and 33 observation field notes, whether they were initiated as a teacher‐led charter or segments coded for physical spaces showed up in almost district‐mandated reform, all were connected by an agency‐ half. based approach advocated by a regional network (CESA1, I then organized these 105 segments into two categories: 2011). Our research group used network sampling (Patton, narratives about the origin of the spaces and observations of 1990) to identify regional leaders, and the saturation the features and use of spaces (See Table 2). Origin stories principle to establish when we had enough data (Guest et al., are the recounted design narrative of the space. Design 2006). narratives are one way to communicate how artifacts are Data was collected by a team of 10 researchers, and I created and offer insights into intentions, give context, and personally spent multiple days in each of the four programs identify who was involved (Grimaldi, Fokkinga, & selected for this case study. Observational protocols focused Ocnarescu, 2013). For features of the designed space, I attention on teacher and student movement throughout the attended to layout, openness, visibility, movement, and space, including tracking individual students’ trajectories as accessibility (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). Finally, from these they moved around the space. Photos and sketches of the two categories of data, the origin stories (design narratives) configurations of the material spaces, such as desks, couches, and the learning activities (affordances), I apply the whiteboards, and screens, were used to document features. theoretical framework to draw out how a participatory Documents were also retrieved from public websites. The process was enacted to provide insight into why these spaces have meaning to these teachers and students and how they become places.

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 37 Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 7, Number 2. 2018 ISSN 21586195

Table 1. List of study sites and descriptive information. Italics indicate four programs selected for this case study. All names are pseudonyms.

Name Level Type Location Students Free & Reduced Lunch

Anderson HS Magnet school Urban 1000 60%

Balsam HS District charter Suburban 150 20%

Carson MS School program Suburban 100 40%

Delaney MS District charter Suburban 400 20%

Edison ES Neighborhood Urban 450 50%

Franklin MS District charter Rural 100 20%

Grant ES Neighborhood Urban 450 70%

Hillside ES Neighborhood Urban 350 70%

Irving ES Neighborhood Rural 350 25%

Irving MS/HS Neighborhood Rural 300 30%

Jackson HS District charter Suburban 100 30%

Kingston MS/HS District charter Urban 70 65%

Notably, studying the physical spaces was not part of the the learning activities observed taking place there (See Table original study; it was the repeated emphasis by educators 2). and students that motivated this inquiry. I represent the spaces as they were when observed, but acknowledge that Balsam High School given their dynamic nature, I cannot fully capture the Origin Story. Balsam HS is a competency‐based, district change in these spaces over time. I also acknowledge my charter school of about 150 students situated at heart of a position as a former teacher and as someone similar in class, large, legacy high school (Figure 1). The program began education level, and teaching philosophy to these educators. amidst a regional movement to create different approaches As a result, I had to dissociate the aesthetic of the space, to education as districts were experiencing tightening which appealed to me, from the analysis of utility and budgets and higher accountability. Balsam’s district meaning ascribed by the educators and students. I use two chartered a number of schools, including an online academy, strategies to minimize, though not eliminate, my role as a but found that students still wanted somewhere to go during researcher. First, my theoretical framework begins with the day to get help from teachers and be with their friends. descriptions of artifacts and their use, from which I then This experience influenced the educators’ sense of draw out interpretations. Second, this is not an evaluative importance in creating a space that would support students study of whether these spaces are better or more effective. academically and socially. The district and legacy high Meaningful learning environments may contribute toward school have been supportive of Balsam, and several faculty improving student learning, but that is beyond the scope of teach or have taught classes in both. this analysis. Instead, my inquiry focuses on the processes of The program is stretched across six classrooms and the construction of place and the infrastructuring of clustered around an open gathering area. The program educational reform. began as an arts community, and the space supports studio Findings spaces for visual and material arts, recording space for audio and video production, and performance spaces with risers For each program, I present an origin story of the physical and stage blocks, as well as small group conference rooms, spaces and description of prominent features, then describe

38 Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 7, Number 2. 2018 ISSN 21586195

Table 2. Analytic summaries

School Origin Stories Affordances Repurposing Process

Balsam HS Charter within a large legacy high  Visibility  Intentional use of proximity to legacy to school  Flexibility promote institutional change, student participation in creating the space

Carson MS Program within a legacy middle  Designation of spaces by  Negotiation for underutilized space school, negotiated for unused space purpose  Feedback from students  Responsive

Delaney MS Whole‐school charter – situated in  Making learning visible  Ongoing negotiation and iteration of an unused, existing school building  Responsive spaces  Feedback from students

Edison ES Whole‐school ‐ required to  Variation for choice and  Teacher control accommodate increasing enrollment movement

flexible seating, and informal hangouts. A hallway runs Adirondack chairs that had been painted by students and through the middle of the program, with visibility across murals in the hallway. and into most of the rooms through open doors or glass Flexibility is seen in both the physical spaces and the walls. With a bell to mark the passing period, students from activities of the students. Many of the rooms have flexible the legacy high school walk through the heart of Balsam, furniture, like node chairs. Most spaces have display seeing what learning looks like there. At times, this fishbowl options, whether a projector or large screen television, for location has generated friction between the legacy and students collaborate or share their work. The largest space charter schools, especially regarding who gets the “cool” had a moveable wall that would allow the room to be furniture and technology, but the principal believes that the divided. One teacher reflects, “I think our spaces are set up proximity and intermingling of students and teachers is to be flexible, to respond to all these different learning needs critical to changing the broader system, linked to the original and modes. I think that also that it encourages having mission of charter schools. smaller groups and breakout groups which are super Learning Activities. On a typical day, there would be important. Like this room is used a lot of the time for smaller students and teachers in most spaces, engaged in quiet breakout groups or for whatever.” conversations, group or individual work, with doors open. Other than attending seminars, students choose where to Carson Middle School work, based on the learning activity, preference, peers and Origin Story. Carson MS, similar to Balsam, is a small teachers, or tools and resources. Even in the seminars, there program of about 100 students situated within a larger might be an extra student working quietly in the back or traditional program and stretches across multiple rooms other students coming in and out. Visibility across the spaces (Figure 2). The two founding teachers wanted to create a is a key facilitator of the instructional program. At Balsam, personalized learning program that challenged traditional students have times when they are working independently structures of schedules, curricula, and assessment. The or are themselves teaching a seminar. One teacher reflects, guiding principles of the program was to have students “See all these glass walls? You can have one teacher determine what they would learn, how they would learn it, [supervise]. From where I’m sitting, I can see 3, about 4 and how they would show that they learned it. Although the classrooms ‐ the stage, the amp, this room and that one, so teachers had previous taught in the legacy middle school, she could be running 4 seminars if she wanted to.” By the program was not initially greeted with excitement, and making the different spaces visible yet separate, the spaces the principal was largely hands off and district facilitate flexibility in supervision, student agency, and administrators played a more supportive role. shared teaching practices. As one more instance of making As the two founding teachers sketched out their academic learning visible, demonstrations of learning were plans, they also had to negotiate with the principal and prominently displayed throughout the space, such as building manager to find a location, and decided to use some

39 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

Figure 1. Balsam High School

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018.

40 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

Figure 2. Carson Middle School

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018.

41 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS underutilized space in the middle school, including a broom proper lighting in the corner. This configuration was based closet, storage space, and a dusty exercise room. The space on a survey of student opinions, but as student and program has no windows and is sort of oddly assembled, and the needs changed, the Studio became a group presentation educators budgeted and developed the plans themselves space and individual work spaces for standardized tests. despite a skeptical building manager. Educators talked to students about their choices about where The teachers and students have progressively modified to work. Conferring at Carson is a regular student‐ teacher and redesigned different areas. Some spaces were combined meeting to go over learning progress. Alongside discussions by taking down walls whereas others were divided by about project deadlines and learning targets, advisors would adding glass walls or panel dividers. Closets were remade as ask students about where they chose to work and what small group or quiet study areas. Furniture and equipment effects that might have had (positive or negative) on their were purchased for the main instructional spaces. In the progress that week. Engaging in reflection about physical central joint of the space, the teachers created a small office spaces belies a belief that the spaces play a role in student for three desks so that they could oversee the two main arms learning, and that teaching students to make choices that and the entrance from the main building. support their learning is part of developing student agency. Learning Activities. Like Balsam, teachers and students A Carson student put it simply, “We like [that] we can pick scattered across the space, and flexibility and visibility were where we go” and the teachers support them through both common themes. Students had open access to all spaces spaces that are responsive to student needs and throughout the day, though they had a QR code badge conversations about the role of spaces in their learning. system to scan in and out so that teachers would know where students were. Here, the designation of spaces by Delaney Middle School name, purpose, and social norms was more explicit than at Origin Story. Unlike Balsam and Carson, Delaney MS is a the high school. For example, the small conference room was district charter school of about 400 students that occupies its called the “Chat Room” to indicate that students should use own building (Figure 3). It was an underutilized district it if they needed to talk with each other and not disrupt building, originally built as an elementary school, that students working in one of the larger spaces. The quiet study became an opportunity to build a large, competency‐based room became an important space for students who needed a program. The building includes several standard‐sized distraction‐free environment, either by choice or by classrooms, science labs, art studio, an engineering lab, agreement with their advisor. Students and teachers several small conference rooms, a gym and cafeteria, and discussed norms for each room, and students described and music classroom. At the heart of the building, an open, were observed reminding each other about noise level or off‐ informal learning space was created by taking down walls task behavior. and installing café height tables, bean bags, and even ping Both short‐ and long‐term configuration of the spaces pong tables. emerged in response to instructional and student needs. The Alongside the evolution of the academic program, the Commons had rolling “node chairs” that facilitated different spaces have been progressively modified in an ongoing and learning configurations within a seminar block. For explicit strategy to foster innovative teaching and learning. example, during a social studies seminar, a teacher gathered The principal described several scenarios in which the about 20 students in a circle, each student sitting in a node design and use of spaces was grounded in what was best for chair. Students then broke up into groups, wheeling their students. For example, there was an underutilized classroom chairs into small groups facing each other. Then, for the that was going to be converted to a business lounge. A recent debate, students lined up in two groups facing each other. entrepreneurship program had created a lot of buzz Movement was done almost in a way that no one noticed amongst students, who could be seen racing each other to how the chairs afforded the changes. get to business class to check their stocks. The principal and The other large space, the Lab, changed over the time the business teacher were envisioning turning an underutilized program was studied. At first, it had traditional science classroom into a business lounge, with glass walls and tables and stools, clearly remnants of original construction. displays with news and stock tickers running. At the same These old tables were removed and a mix of small tables on time, a new arts pathway that had been created to meet wheels and moveable lab tables were installed to provide the student interest in visual arts needed a studio that would flexibility for engineering type projects as well a traditional allow students to use glue, paint, and clay. After considering science experiments. Adjacent to the Lab is the Studio, which the needs of both programs, the decision was made to also changed over the time the program was studied. At first, convert the classroom into the art space. The Delaney it had six tables, each with a display and soft orange stools principal described his conversation with the business to sit on, plus a green screen with photography umbrellas for teacher,

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 42 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

Figure 3. Delaney Middle School

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018.

43 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

Figure 4. Edison Elementary School

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018.

44 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

wanting polished concrete floors for a new science lab “I had to say, pretend that you’re an art teacher who is renovation. Pictures and plans are regularly shared as ideas going to be working with kids working with glue and take shape, and the transparency of process mirrors the paint and clay. Where would you put them in this desire for making learning visible. school? And he looked at me, smiled, and walked away. [He said,] ‘I get it.’ So then he started designing the space Edison Elementary School for where he is now. It takes it away from the teacher‐ Origin Story. Edison ES is a neighborhood school that centered approach.” serves about 450 students (Figure 4). In contrast with the

three other sites, this was an existing neighborhood school Once the decision was made, students came in over spring that shifted its instructional program toward personalized break to paint and organize the new art room. In this way, learning through a district mandate. At the same time, they the changes in the physical space become intertwined with experienced an almost doubling of their enrollment within the values of the program, both of which incorporate student just a few years. Space to accommodate this increase was voices into the origin and creation of the space. found by rethinking how spaces could be used, including Learning Activities. Making learning visible is a key taking down walls, combining classrooms, and converting aspect of the school’s mission. By this, they mean both the the cafeteria and library spaces into classrooms. Students products and the processes of learning. As such, they have now eat their lunch on movable tables in the gym, and the the mind‐set that “all spaces are learning spaces.” Like librarian stores books in a classroom, using a rolling cart to Balsam and Carson, students have open access, allowing bring the library to kids. them to work in the hallway, small conference rooms, and to The teachers were integrally involved in reimagining their move in and out of classrooms, and this openness extends to spaces. They were given complete control, as two teachers visitors. During one visit, I was having a hard time finding a share in an interview: particular teacher, sod I aske a couple kids sitting at their lockers in the hallway. A student jumped up and walked me Interviewer: You were here when this was all to a classroom, walked right in, and the teacher welcomed changed? So, how much say did you have in us into the space. There was no sign we were interrupting or designing your classroom, or did you design all questioning what the student was doing. Delaney also has of it yourself? QR scanners to allow students to check in or out of spaces. Respondent 1: 100% Whereas many programs buy and install furniture and Interviewer: Like all the couches? You picked technology based on curriculum or teacher needs, Delaney all of this out yourself? looks to student use. The principal remembers watching Respondent 2: We picked it out, paid for it, students working on their iPads, brought it in, we picked it from a lot of rummage sales, on the street. “I would go into a room and I would see 5‐6 kids huddle around an iPad and I would think this makes no sense, so Larger spaces were created as teachers also began co‐ or we have SmartBoards and all are attached to iPads but it’s team‐teaching in different configurations with specialists, the teacher on there, so we wanted quick blast stations [for and this combining of spaces and teaching configurations kids].” was integral to how PL was being implemented. Learning Activities. Teachers designed a variety of They purchased mobile displays that students would have learning arrangements for their classrooms. First, the larger access to plug in their iPads, not just restricted to teacher use. spaces were divided up in into a variety of arrangements: Likewise, when students were seen sitting on the floor in the there was a usually a rug in front of a SmartBoard for whole hallway, tables, chairs, and even a display was installed so class activities, small reading nooks or comfortable seating that the space supported student learning and sharing. for independent work, and tables for small group or Importantly, I regularly observed students using these collaborative projects. This provided a coherence to the open spaces, moving between them, and appreciating the space, and while a student gave a presentation to a group of flexibility they afforded. One student related that it was easy students sitting on a small riser, another student sat to coordinate with friends to work together throughout the undisturbed just 3 meters away, tucked into a couch, facing day. the opposite direction. A few classrooms made seminar style The principal regularly “crowdsources and vets” ideas instruction spaces with café table desks and risers. There with students through informal conversations, google were also lockers with iPad charging ports, lamps and surveys, and “beta testing” programs, everything from plants, and chairs with tennis balls stuck to the feet to make wanting more visual arts classes, as described above, or them easier to move. In one classroom, there were two sofa

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 45 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS chairs with footstools and big pillows next to a fake fireplace. Discussion Notably, teachers did not have their own desk area as they were constantly moving throughout the room leading Up to this point, I have written exclusively about spaces, instruction, working one‐on‐one, or listening in on group not places. I now look across programs to draw out insights work. from the origin stories and learning activities, connecting One teacher of a combined 4 year old and 5 yeard ol both to participatory design processes. kindergarten spoke at length about her space, repeating Origin Stories. Common across all the origin stories is many aspects corroborated by observations of the space, that they took a space that was already built and repurposed it into their vision for student learning. For Balsam and We try to keep our classroom, as conducive to Carson, this meant carving out a space in the middle of play as possible, we do have a large meeting larger program. For Delaney, this meant occupying an space where we can all gather together for our empty school with a new vision. For Edison, this meant morning meetings and our closing meetings … opening doors, taking down walls, and moving libraries to we also have individual places for students to create larger spaces with small pockets. Whereas renovation go, if they need a quieter spot to go and work or restoration of a space means returning it back to intended … the students know that have to be quieter in use, these programs were repurposing their spaces, or that room …[if] they need to collaborate altering how the spaces were used relative to the intentions together they know that they have to play that of the original designer. Repurposing has the advantage of in the tiger room, and if they are working being faster and cheaper than building a new space independently, which means that they are (Bloszies, 2013), but it is also constrained by existing working on something by themselves, then structures. This presents a design challenge for educators they can do that in the elephant room. And they have gotten very used to understanding and students to create a learning space that affords desired which room is which and going into the learning activities. Creating these learning spaces required elephant room to be more quieter and into the educators and students to negotiate between their vision of tiger room to be bit … louder. personalized learning and physical constraints. As such, the actions of educators, with the input from students, to Watching students learn in this space challenged what repurpose their physical spaces is an act of design and it learning bodies should look like. Students were spread out communicates their intentions about the types of learning around the room in different body configurations. One boy activities that should happen there. was lying on his back, sunk down into a small version of a Learning Activities. Once they had designed a new space, sofa chair, legs straight up in the air, working on his iPad. A however, they did not stop. Through attention to how few were sitting or lying on the floor. learning actually happened, all programs were in a continual One leader at Edison credit the flexibility of their spaces process of redesigning and repurposing. The actions of and schedules as having dramatically reduced office students, in this way, acted as a feedback mechanism toward referrals: redesign. This took place on different scales. At Carson and Delaney in particular, educators solicited direct feedback So last year we had ten fifth grade EBD [emotional or from students, and at Balsam, Carson, and Delaney, students behavioral disorder] boys and girls, and [the new space] were directly involved in creating spaces. At Edison, the works so well for them because it’s flexible so one little process was in response to student behavioral needs. guy, he decided he was going to spend the year on my Importantly, these iterations do not exist apart from the couch ‐ he was in one of those big rooms and he didn’t instructional system and relationships between teachers and like it in a big room, we’ve since given everyone a little students. For example, once students had the flexibility to room so kids can go off [when they need]. A special ed choose where they wanted to work, this meant teachers teacher said, “You know what? You’re brilliant.” needed to support students instructionally, including using a learning management software that allowed students to This quote shares the sentiment of how these educators work at their own pace and integrate conversations about connected their change of space and instructional program these choices into conversations about learning. with meeting the needs of their students. That little boy, who Participatory Design. The process of repurposing spaces had fifteen office referrals the year before, had none this became one of participatory design in two ways: who was year. These little rooms were often repurposed specialist involved and the shift in desired outcomes. First, the offices, who now worked directly in classrooms or floated educators and students were both the users and designers, between. thus intimately engaged in the design process and attention to their own practice informed each iteration. Consequently,

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 46 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS the spaces they designed were functional toward their aspect of how educational reform is happening and why instructional and learning goals because, rather than being they are a prominent aspect of the change narrative. designed by someone far away, they are able to customize One question that emerges here is the perennial critique of each bit of the design. Second, their own intentions become which came first: does the participatory design of these embedded in the physical space itself. As the program and places rely on or create meaningful places? Did these learning activities change, the physical sspace become a site educators and students already find their school spaces that has multiple meanings to multiple people. This meaningful and so they engaged in participatory design, or continual construction of meaning through repurposing is did the engagement in participatory design create the how physical spaces become meaningful learning places. It meaningful places? Given the national discussion of the lack is worth noting that this is more than educators and students of student engagement in schools (Washor & Mojkowski, being asked their opinion. What makes this a case of 2014) and Fisher’s (2004) argument that the physical spaces participatory design is the engagement of users in design and of schools are largely ignored aspects of educators’ and the program goal of building agency in educators and students’ schooling experiences, it is reasonable to conclude students. These programs have explicit goals of empowering that this is, at the minimum, a synergistic process. Given this, teachers to construct the conditions for students to be agents it is worth keeping in perspective that the artifacts themselves in their own learning. This reform, in this way, aligns with are not the answer (Halverson, 2003); the artifacts mediate and the democratic roots of participatory design of developing constitute the work, and this is what evaluative studies of agency, meaning, and community. In these programs, the spaces miss. It is not the particular height of the table or physical spaces become the site for participatory design. wheels on the tables: it is the participatory design process Physical Spaces in Educational Reform. Taken as an and the engagement in design that builds the infrastructure instantiation of participatory design, repurposing the for change. physical spaces becomes an infrastructuring activity, or activity that builds the capacity, connections, and Conclusion sustainability for continued work (Ehn, 2008; Penuel, 2015). The questions I set out to answer are: How do the physical Infrastructuring is often seen through agonistic interactions, spaces of personalized learning programs become meaningful, such as the conflict with the legacy high school at Balsam or learning places, and why does this matter to these educators and negotiation over space at Delaney, because they build students? Studying the origin stories and activities in these relationships, history, identity, and meaning. Seeing the programs provided insight into how the changes in space are design processes as infrastructuring reveals, again, why happening, through the participatory design process of these spaces matter to these educators, but also points to repurposing. The first part of why this matters is functional: their role in educational reform. it allows educators and students to match the features of The shift to personalized learning in this region has largely their spaces to desired activities. The second part is that the been “inside‐out,” with changes beginning with educators process embeds meaning in the physical space, becoming the and growing out to the system (Calhoun & Joyce, 2005). Thus mechanism for constructing meaningful places. Finally, understanding this as an educational reform movement understanding repurposing as a form of participatory means attending to how educators narrate the changes they design lends the perspective of infrastructuring as one have made, and this includes the prominent attention they mechanism that creates the capacity, connections, and put on their physical spaces. The framing presented here sustainability for educational reform. thus considers these spaces‐turned‐places as artifacts of the It is worth noting, that in these cases, there were no reform. In this way, these places create and reflect the social architects or professional designers present. In most cases of infrastructure of change: the work of educators and students participatory design, there is a university‐ or industry‐based as they literally and socially construct places for authentic, designer who acts as a facilitator. This may mean that the genuine, and meaningful learning. designated leaders, such as principals and instructional This analysis supports the argument that the physical coaches, take on the role of facilitating design, but without spaces can be treated as an integral aspect of how this reform the explicit knowledge of spatial literacy (New London is being enacted and sustained and develops a theoretical Group, 1996) or environmental competence (Lackney, 2008). framework to do so. To be sure, the reform is not solely This may result in spaces do not properly support learning, enacted this way; the physical spaces are part of the larger are inefficient, or may be out of compliance with building educational system. Further inquiry is needed into how the codes. However as architects and designers seek to improve physical spaces interact with the instructional system, educator awareness of the importance of space, a first step staffing decisions, budgets, etc. What I observed in these may be recognizing the design processes already in place, as four programs is that meaningful learning places are one this paper does.

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 47 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning References sciences, 11(1), 105‐121.

Author, et al. (2015). Personalization in practice: Observations Ehn, P. (2008, October). Participation in design things. from the field. Working Paper. In Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008 (pp. 92‐101). Indiana University. Bloszies, C. (2013). Old Buildings New Designs: Architectural Transformations. Princeton Architectural Press. Fisher, K. (2004). Revoicing Classrooms: A Spatial Manifesto. In FORUM: for promoting 3‐19 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people Comprehensive Education (Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 36‐38). learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: Symposium Journals. PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford OX11 National Research Council. 9ZQ, UK.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Gislason, N. (2009). Mapping school design: A qualitative Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: study of the relations among facilities design, curriculum Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press. delivery, and school climate. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(4), 17‐34. Calhoun, E., & Joyce, B. (1998). “Inside‐out” and “outside‐ in”: Learning from past and present school improvement Grimaldi, S., Fokkinga, S., & Ocnarescu, I. (2013). paradigms. In International handbook of educational Narratives in design. Proceedings of the 6th International change (pp. 1286‐1298). Springer Netherlands. Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products dan Interfaces ‐ DPPI ’13, (April 2016), 201. Carpenter, R. (2016). Mapping the Hot Spots: A Zoning Approach to Space Analysis and Design. Journal of Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many Learning Spaces, 5(1). interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59‐82. Casey, E. S. (1993). Getting back into place: Toward a renewed understanding of the place‐world. Indiana University Press. Halverson, R. R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in CESA1. (2011). Public Education Transformation Powered schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 37. by Regional Action Networks. Halverson, R., & Halverson, E. (2011). Education as design Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of for learning: A model for integrating education inquiry physical learning environments: A critical review of the across research traditions. The Sage Handbook for Research literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1‐28. in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry, 323–339. The Design‐Based Research Collective. (2003). Design‐ based research: An emerging paradigm for educational Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: inquiry. Educational Researcher, 5‐8. modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. DiMartino, J., Clarke, J., & Wolk, D. (Eds.). (2003). Personalised learning: preparing high school students to Hubbard, P., & Kitchin, R. (Eds.). (2010). Key Thinkers on create their futures. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Space and Place. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DiSalvo, B. J., DiSalvo, C. (2014). Designing for Democracy Jones, P. B. (2015). The Development of the School Building in Education: Participatory Design and the Learning and the Articulation of Territory. In P. Woolner (Ed.), Sciences. Presented at the International Conference of the School Design Together. New York, NY: Routledge. Learning Sciences. Lackney, J. A. (2008). Teacher environmental competence in DiSalvo, B., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & DiSalvo, C. (Eds.). elementary school environments. Children, Youth and (2017). Participatory Design for Learning: Perspectives from Environments, 18(2), 133–159. Practice and Research. Taylor & Francis.

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 48 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF CLASSROOMS

Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329‐394. the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science, 14(3), 399‐441. Mathews, B. S., & Soistmann, L. A. (2016). Encoding space: Shaping learning environments that unlock human potential. Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy‐space‐technology (PST) ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries, a framework for designing and evaluating learning places. division of the American Library Association). In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible Space & Built Pedagogy: by design. St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland. Emerging IT Embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19. Retrieved from Rickabaugh, J. (2016). Tapping the Power of Personalized http://www.torinmonahan.com/papers/Inventio.html Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Nair, P., & Fielding, R. (2005). The language of school Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing Learning Theory by design: Design patterns for 21st century schools. Refining Conjectures Embodied in Educational Designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, Steelcase Education. (2015). Active Learning Spaces: Insights 66(1), 60–92. Retrieved from and Application Guide. Grand Rapids, MI. http://www.sfu.ca/~decaste/newlondon.htm Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by Design: Norman, D. A. (1994). Things that make us smart: Creating Campus Learning Environments That Work. The Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Jossey‐Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Oblinger, D.G., & Lippincott, J.K. (Eds.) (2006). Learning Tanenbaum, C., Le Floch, K., Boyle, A. (2013). Are Spaces. Brockport Bookshelf. Book 78. Personalized Learning Environments the Next Wave of K‐12 Reform? American Institutes for Research. Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2007). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform Thornburg, D. D. (2004). Campfires in cyberspace. (9th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson Education. Instructional Technology, 3.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2014). Student methods. SAGE Publications, inc. disengagement: Itʹs deeper than you think. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 8‐10. Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: Defining and integrating personalized, blended Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the Mind. Harvard and competency education. International Association for K‐ University Press. 12 Online Learning. Woolner, P. (Ed.) (2015). School Design Together. New York, Penuel, W. (2015, September). Infrastructuring as a practice NY: Routledge. for promoting transformation and equity in design‐based implementation research. In keynote presentation at the Woolner, P., Thomas, U., Tiplady, L. (2018). Structural meeting of the International Society for Design and Change from Physical Foundations: The role of the Development in Education Conference, Boulder, Colorado, environment in enacting school change, Journal of http://learndbir.org/talks‐and‐papers/infrastructuring‐as‐ Educational Change. 19:223. a‐practice‐for‐promoting‐transformation‐and‐equity‐in‐ design‐based‐implementation‐research‐2015.

Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 2018. 49